PDS

I know this is the Trump humor thread, but I find the fact that the Republican weenies who are not supporting Trump--after having signed a pledge that they would when it was to their advantage to pledge such support--are the worst kind of hypocrites, twice over. First, for signing the pledge in the first place. Second, for not renouncing the pledge while they were still in the game, i.e., when it could have actually affected them. Anybody can be an anti Trump hero now, when they are no longer on the ballots. This doesn't apply to Romney, of course, as he didn't run. As to Jon's point about laying awake in bed at night, not a chance. Sadly, you are giving these guys way too much credit for having scruples. The power of the human mind to rationalize when under pressure is almost unlimited.

Yes, Baal, I understand this. I have 28 employees where I need to make payroll twice a month. This is not a foreign concept to most people. The point is, whether they even know it or not, everybody does what Greg claims to have figured out-- no matter what the check says, unless they aren't paying taxes.

So, I charge $450 per hour as a good old fashioned capitalist. Nobody puts a gun to anybody's head and presto, for some reason, people hire me. It sure seems like I pay taxes on this money each year: once every quarter, and once every April 15 to "true up" the gap between the quarterly payments I have made and the remaining amounts owed. If I didn't do this, jail awaits. How is this different than what you are describing? If all you are saying is that your pricing is higher so that you can capture your tax liabilities, isn't that like saying my $450 hourly rate implicitly captures my tax liabilities? And isn't the same true for everybody else who either has a job, or is self-employed, including the guy working at McDonald's? In other words, the guy at McDonald's makes 7.5% less than he otherwise would because his employer is paying his FICA/FUTA and other taxes. Everybody's compensation has an implied load attached, i.e., the tax load. There is nothing special about being a plumber, electrician, or lawyer that makes this more or less true.

MSK: The thread's name is Why is There Religion, and you have brought up St. Augustine's Confessions. Kudos to you for having recently read this, and thank you for your thoughts on the book. Very interesting comments. It has been a few years since I have read the Confessions, but you have inspired me to take another peak at it/them.

One can also "allow" for the existence of Ghost Ships and little forest fairies. Do you believe free will exists, or not?

Max: are you certain believes in free will? I don't think we have a clear statement from him on this quite yet.

Stephen: Although I see your point, this strikes me as pretty easy patriotism--if it can even be called that. Thankfully, we still live in a country where people can simply refer to "Bush" for political purposes, but pretty much everybody knows that's he was "President Bush" the day after 9/11. Same with Obama. And President Obama too.

Speaking of matters scatological, if Slick Willie took plane trips to an island to meet teenage girls and left his secret service people behind than the Clinton campaign is in deep, deep Doo-Doo. If that happened, Trump is going to be running against Biden or Warren or even Bernie the Commie. The recklessness of such behavior will amplify Hillary's recklessness with her server. 1 + 1 will equal more than 2 in that situation. I stand by my original prediction of a Hillary landslide, but I'm also becoming concerned that there isn't enough pepper in the world to make crow taste much good...

Can you point me to an authoritative source for the statement that free will dwells within the HUP? Not being snarky. i am genuinely interested.

How sentimental of you. None of these preferences make any sense with in the framework you claim to adhere to. These preferences and disinclinations imply such a thing as "free will". According to your "Man is Merely a Glorified Amoeba" theory, there could be no free will. I agree with Brant that you need to go read yourself some Ayn Rand. For obvious reasons, a good start would be her explication of the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.

You might be welcome!

MIchael: that's fine--I respect your point about wagering, and I also respect your statements about being pissed if Trump doesn't do what he says he will do. That's really all I was driving at. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, with a little crow thrown on top. Now let me put my money where my mouth is:. If Trump signs a budget bill that reduces federal spending, I will send $500 to OL and I will personally send you a taxidermed crow. I will be happy to do so, and happy to be wrong on this point. And you are welcome to remind me should I forget this in this future.

Korban: I agree re your last paragraph about Ryan.

I look forward to Greg's answer to this question.

Okay. Can you name something specific you object to about last year's budget? I am going to assume your objection--like mine--is that the budget increased federal spending. Yet again. Do you plan to hold Trump to this same standard when he signs a new budget bill in 2017? Or any year thereafter? Because I will bet you a serious sum of real money that Trump will not sign a budget bill that actually reduces federal spending in any year he is President. Are you willing to make that bet with me? We can negotiate the terms of the bet privately if you are interested.

Is there anything that Ryan has specifically done that leads you to say that he is not a man of principled vision? Can you be specific with an example or two? Implicit in your statement is the idea that being a person of "principled vision" is important to a politician. Is Trump a principled politician? It is indeed true that Trump has a physical trail of buildings around the world, but he is not running for the position of chief real estate developer. As I have said before, I have a client just like Trump: life-long developer, billionaire, excellent employer of thousands of employees, and great visionary. He is also humble, not prone to exaggeration, can take a punch without acting like a bully, and gives a great deal to charity. None of this means my client would be a good president. Assuming the same standards apply to judgments about the "principled vision(s)" of both Ryan and Trump, I would say Trump's actions do no quite align with his words either. Just as one example, do Trump's actions regarding non-Americans that he employs at his hotels align with his words about immigrants? I don't think so. Trump also claims to have a principled objection to the Clintions, but his actions (which unfortunately his nose will be rubbed in mercilessly in the coming months) are belied by this. He not only gave money to Hillary and endorsed her, but claimed that her vote for one of the Endless Wars was justified by the "lies" told to her. Trump also (now) claims that the government should initiate force and require employers to pay a higher minimum wage. Does Trump voluntarily pay his lowest paid employees higher than minimum wage, like he expects others to do? I have no desire to rehash the particulars, but am interested in the underlying principle: why are actions that don't align with his stated principles okay when it involvies Trump, but different when involving Ryan?

I have always loved Newt's intellect, but I think this would be a disaster--not unlike the Cruz selection of CF. Trump and Newt are too much alike. I am not saying Trump should add a VP choice in some conventional fashion, but there are better unconventional options out there. I am partly kidding: what about somebody like Mark Cuban?

If your objection to God is that he failed to construct a "perfect world", then you have no objection at all. The only world in which something called an objection would exist is one that is not perfect. You are in effect objecting to water because it is wet.

Now you're just emoting. What do you want God to do when I'm about to stub my toe? Smooth the sidewalk? You can do better than this Baal. Make an argument. You're acting like an angry old man telling God to get off his lawn. ?

How can perfection be judged absent the concept of imperfection?

You didn't address my point. Are you talking to yourself, or are we having a conversation? Truly not trying to score a debate point: I'm genuinely curious as to your response to the fallacy above.

My views have evolved in this topic. ?

I'm curious what has led to your dim view of Ryan. He seems like a standard-issue politician to me-- with a dash of lip service to Rand thrown in. But I'm not aware anything he's specifically done that Trump (at least when he's impersonating a conservative) would claim not to generally agree with.

Good to see that Man Baby is such a stalwart Republican. 2006 was, what, a decade ago?

Understood. But I am hoping to make a more subtle point. Any complaint you might make about God's actions, such as allowing "evil" really comes down to a complaint that God has not constructed a perfect world. I assume you are familiar with this form of Nirvana fallacy. Let's say your complaint was that God allows the very worst disease imaginable, and therefore, to use your word, is "pathetic". Let's name that diseases cancer for young children. Assume further that God heard your prayers or otherwise decided to eliminate that disease. The result of that action by God be to would leave the human race with what used to be the 2nd worst disease, maybe cholera for children or something. The only way there would not be a complaint about God in, for instance, the realm of disease would be for him to eliminate all diseases. And then, once all diseases were eliminated, we would complain that God allows sneezing, coughing, or broken arms, since--at that point in time--those conditions would be the worst medical conditions left. Etc. Etc. Eventually, after many prayers and much compliance by God in response to your complaints, you'll get to mosquito bites. Mosquito bites will be the worst element of the human condition left. God thus cannot win unless he eliminates anything we view, through our human lenses, as negative. Until, of course, he constructs a perfect world.